Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Sitting Out the Tennessee Waltz

By David Greenberg May 8, 2007 6:06 pmMay 8, 2007 6:06 pm

Despite two crowded fields of presidential aspirants, voters remain unhappy. Each party lacks a candidate with the ability to unite and excite its diverse factions—while also projecting the electability needed for the fall 2008 race. So we’re now hearing wistful talk that two Tennessee senators-turned-Hollywood-stars might join the race: Fred Thompson for the Republicans, Al Gore for the Democrats. Neither man, alas, can answer his party’s prayers.

Gore would probably have made an excellent president. He is a Clinton liberal but not a mushy centrist. As one of the few Democrats who got both Gulf wars right—supporting the first in 1991, opposing the second in 2002—he has the national-security credentials to compete with the Republicans among a public that esteems hawkishness. But Gore has never been a natural campaigner, and the case for his resurrection in 2008 rests on the fantasy that he has changed fundamentally from the uncertain and lumbering candidate he was in 2000.

This fantasy is a version of the “New Nixon” of the 1960s. In 1960 and again in 1968, Richard Nixon tried to convince voters that he had abandoned the cutthroat politics of his early career and matured into a statesman. Watergate, of course, dispelled that fiction. But we still suppose that politicians can magically transform themselves between election cycles—as if deep-seated character traits were modified as easily as position papers.

Some admirers point to Gore’s star turn in the Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” to insist he’s a different man. In the film Gore certainly displayed a confidence, humor, and passion in lecturing audiences about global warming that generally went unseen in 2000. His winning performance suggests to me, however, not that he would be less professorial on the stump in a future race but rather that he could have thrived in a career as a professor.
The Gore fantasy also represents, for some, a wish to re-run the still-controversial 2000 election. Many Americans (including me) believe that Gore was the rightful victor in that race. Giving him another shot—with both the candidate and the public presumably having learned their lessons—would be poetic justice. Unfortunately, though, even a belated Gore presidency can’t mend the tears in the constitutional fabric caused by our having installed a president who wasn’t the real winner.

If imagining Gore to be the Democrats’ savior is naïve, casting Fred Thompson as the solution to the Republicans’ woes is downright bizarre. Never a top-tier senator, Thompson, despite his many television and movie roles over the years, is little known outside the Beltway. It wasn’t his star power as an actor that catapulted him to political success, as was true for Ronald Reagan; on the contrary, Thompson started as a Washington insider and then built an acting career on bit parts he landed because he resembles a Washington insider. That won’t juice voters the way Arnold Schwarzenegger’s gubernatorial candidacy did in 2003.

Most fatally to the Thompson scenario, he isn’t even more conservative than the current crop of G.O.P. aspirants. Although his boosters suggest he’d be more palatable to the party’s ultraconservative base than Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, little evidence supports their claim.

As a senator, Thompson occupied the Republican mainstream. He allied with neither his party’s disappearing moderates nor its more numerous ultraconservatives. Were he to join the race, petty-minded pundits and niggling bloggers would surely unearth deviations from doctrinal orthodoxy—starting with his vote against impeaching Bill Clinton—just as they have with Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. In politics, purity does not exist.

Eventually, Republican voters will almost certainly unite around Giuliani or McCain. (I don’t consider Romney—a failed one-term governor from a blue state—to be a plausible candidate, despite his two much-touted strengths: his prowess in fundraising and his prow of a jaw.)

The authoritarian Giuliani in particular has the makings of a conservative hero: his celebration of machismo as a repudiation of liberal permissiveness, his desire to bring church and state closer together, his equation of the personal power of the executive with the official power of the government. The mere fact that Giuliani doesn’t favor criminalizing abortion surely won’t hurt him much; even President Bush, after all, insists that the country isn’t “ready” for it to be banned.

The Democrats, too, will probably muffle their grumbling soon enough and rally behind Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. To be sure, some liberals, while disavowing any bigotry of their own, still wonder if the country is prepared to elect a woman or a black man. But Clinton or Obama can surmount these doubts simply by building their followings: as skeptical voters come to see the candidates drawing supporters, the skeptics may conclude that their countrymen are less racist or sexist than they had supposed—and therefore may shelve their own doubts as well.

For Clinton, the steeper challenge lies in placating leftists who seek an immediate pullout from Iraq. But as rank-and-file Democrats start paying more attention to the race, including those who fear letting Iraq turn into an Al Qaeda training ground, the militant left may exert less pull than it does now. Howard Dean, for one, can attest that the early-stage enthusiasm of activists doesn’t always translate into majorities in the caucuses and primaries.

Despite enjoying momentum today, Obama actually has a harder sell to make. There is nothing he can do to address his major shortcoming: the absence on his résumé of the kind of major achievement that qualifies a person for the White House. Still, he might be able compensate with his Kennedy-style cool and his (Bill) Clinton-like ability to appeal to leftists, liberals and moderates alike. If his candidacy so far is superficial, so are the doubts about him.

In short, while the current front-runners have their evident flaws—and voters will keep seeking candidates who don’t—this discontent is normal, and the arrival of a newcomer won’t cure it. Indeed, we should be suspicious of the yearnings for a savior. In years past they yielded candidacies like those of Gen. Wesley K. Clark in 2004, which quickly fizzled, and movements like the “Anybody But Clinton” push of spring 1992, which would have denied Democrats their most talented politician in a generation.

The reason Al Gore and Fred Thompson have become repositories for so many hopes has little to do with any manifest superiority to the current group. The reason is that they’re not running. Gore and Thompson aren’t out there daily before the press and the public, making gaffes, brandishing their imperfections, and offering unsatisfying answers to impossible questions like what to do about Iraq or how to fix the health-care crisis. They exist as idealized alternatives.

Outsized expectations of our candidates and leaders invariably bring disappointment, because politics requires compromise. Indeed, in recent times the strongest candidates have often been those like Bill Clinton, who was put through the wringer on the road to the 1992 nomination but survived. Having been inoculated, so to speak, by Gennifer Flowers affair, he emerged from the primaries more resistant to subsequent scandals. Voters had become aware of his many shortcomings and made their peace with them.

Definitely agree with Greenberg’s main idea (the grass is always greener), though I don’t know that he fully makes the case for why a Gore candidacy is doomed (other than the fact that Gore himself doesn’t seem particularly interested in it).

I think the Giuliani stuff is particularly prescient. His authoritarian bent suits these troubled times and I don’t think that the abortion issue is as central as pundits make it seem. Also, he’s different (ethnic last name), but not too different (Mormon, black, female).

In my opinion, a Giuliani presidency at this point in history would be truly scary because the combination of a power-hungry executive and emerging technologies would bring futuristic doom and gloom scenarios (1984, etc.) to fruition. I trust that the Libertarian strand of the GOP will sense this, but I don’t know whether they’ll vote Dem, stay home, or decide to vote for him anyway.

Once again with the lumbering, ineffective candidate Gore. In 2000, the poor schlub outpolled the Press Corps’ darling, our current disaster, by several hundred thousand votes, and arguably had the election stolen in Florida. This, despite the almost constant savaging he underwent at the hands of the mainstream broadcast and print press.
Having said that, this column, and much of the other current coverage doesn’t bode well for any better treatment from the mainstream press this time around, either. It was, and continues to be, Al’s fault – not the blameless mandarins of ink and airwaves.

BTW, if any Democrat had a tenth of Rudy Giuliani’s personal baggage, the mandarins would already have declared his candidacy DOA.

Your point that Gore and Thompson aren’t out there “making gaffes, brandishing their imperfections, and offering unsatisfying answers to impossible questions” is precisely why Al Gore, in particular, has an unprecedented opportunity to swoop in and grab the nomination right out from under Clinton and Obama’s noses.

While the current frontrunners continue to exhaust valuable resources and drain their vibrancy competing with one another on the dusty and enervating campaign trail, Al Gore sits comfortably on the sidelines virtually unscathed and preserving his statesmanlike demeanor. Say what you will about his lack of charisma but there is no question that Gore is a smart man, and it behooves him to remain far above the fray for as long as he can, quietly observing and learning from said gaffes and imperfections. Moreover, like many pundits, Gore recognizes that the current administration has wrought what will undoubtedly become a Republican backlash — not unlike 1976 when Jimmy Carter was considered the antidote to a corrupt Republican administration, thus ensuring that 2008 will be the Democrats race to lose….

Yes, I’d love for Al Gore to be our next president – not to redress the past (although that would be very satisfying) but because he’s the only man I can think of with the skill to clean up the mess. The Bush administration has taken this country as close to fascism as I hope we ever get. Who’s going to lead us to a better future?

I am convinced that Professor Greenberg has the Fred Thompson scenario correct. I have read in a few places how the Thompson candidacy will change the race. Huh?! How is he any different from nine of the current ten Republican candidates? What does he possess that will make him appealing to evangelicals? Nada.

This column forces a parallel where there isn’t one. The Democrats suffer, if that’s the right word for it, from a surplus of qualified candidates–and it seems clear that Obama at least has “the ability to unite and excite its diverse factions,” and certainly has comparable experience to Kennedy in ’59 or Bill Clinton in ’91, no matter what Greenberg says. The Republicans have a bunch of scrubs running, none of whom (apart from McCain) really present anything approaching a profile that would make for a successful candidate, much less a president. Greenberg could have made his point without forcing a false parallel on us.

My hope is that Al Gore will run and win the 2008 election. I believe he would appeal to both democract and independent voters, as well as some republican voters. Mr. Gore would be a far better president than Hillary Clinton. If Ms. Clinton is the democratic nominee, I will not vote for her. We have had enough of the Bush family and the Clintons.

Mr. Greenberg’s summations are grounded in both history and reality. Mr. Gore’s time (or rather opportunites) have passed. Mr. Thompson’s appeal eminates from his acting persona as opposed to his senatorial experience.

I would not be surprised if we see “hybrids” emerge from both camps. Rudy & John (or vice-versa) pitted against Clinton – Obama (or vice-versa).

One disappointment with Mr. Greenberg’s finding is that he falls into the “resume” and experience sink hole when considering Obama. Churchill’s resume was extensive but not highly favorable when he assumed the office of PM as war broke out in Europe and perhpas our greatest president, Mr. Lincoln, had virtually no experience in matters of state. What these men had in great abundance was courage, conviction and judgment. Not for a New York minute am I suggesting that Mr. Obama is the second coming of either Winnie or Honest Abe but I hope the debate focuses on attributes other than a resume.

Wrong. Clinton’s high negatives and Obama’s inexperience and shamefully, for this Country, his race, make both this Country’s Segolene Royal. If either is matched up against any of the Republican front runners there will be a replay of 2000 and 2004. I want a Democrat to win. It must be Gore or else expect a Bush 3rd term. Democrat’s now lead by 15-20% in party perference, but when the current candidates are matched things are much different. It must be Gore. He won in 2000. If the Country wants a great president and a great leader for the world and the future it’s Gore, if it wants someone to have a drink with – well that’s another thing.

Using the term Clinton liberal takes a lot away from an otherwise intelligent analysis. As one who is a liberal and proud of it, it really rankles to have either of the Clintons, but especially Bill, described as liberals. He governed tactically, alert to public opinion rather than from a dogmatic liberal philosophy. There isn’t much doubt that Hillary will follow the same approach. The net result is a mixed bag pragmatism best described as moderate.

It is bad enough that the term liberal has taken on such a negative connotation, but that anyone who is not politically conservative is by default a liberal — say it with a dismissive snarl — derails the hope for the reasoned political discourse which will be required to solve the many crises brewing in America and the world.

Can we please begin to use the term liberal in a more reasoned fashion?

Prof. Greenberg’s comments are pretty much to point. Of course he, like so many on the left of center, still believe that Al Gore won the 2000 election. Having spent some time in working Florida politics, I disagree. I won’t go into reasons because it would take too long, save to say that all of the counties in contention were headed by Democrats who validated the horrible ballots.
Fred Thompson probably didn’t stand out in the U.S. Senate. He only had a short first term and grew tired of the process in his second(he won with the highest vote in Tenn. history).
I don’t know how Greenberg can dismiss Romney as a “failed” governor of the Bay State. Republicans won for a number of years in a very Democrat-dominated state). The rest of GOP field
is questionable in the minds of their very conservative voters.
As a registered Democrat I find almost all the Democrats lacking in some way. Sen. Clinton, by far, is the most experienced(she’s smart and picked up a lot being First Lady for eight years). Electable? Obama is fascinating, yet is so green that it is hard to really take him seriously. Joe Biden is a first-rate Senator, yet the media thinks he talks too much. How sad.
The rest of the field, including the darling of the left–John Edward(Mr. Two Americas)is lacking in a lot of ways. Gov. William Blaine Richardson, my governor, is trying to hard to play all parts of the political spectrum. For someone who is supposed to know something about foreign affairs, his latest comments and suggestions are simply playing to the MoveOn and Daily KOS folks. Also, save for a first run for the House, Richardson has not had any difficult races in New Mexico. He claims to be a tax cutter. He is hardly that.
All in all the prospects for a solid candidate in the 2008 election is, in my opinion, is pretty remote.

You said: “Gore would probably have made an excellent president. He is a Clinton liberal but not a mushy centrist.”

What, pray tell, gives anyone the idea that Clinton is a liberal? I can’t think of a more conservative Democrat president in the last century than Clinton, although I think Carter is a not very distant second.

I don’t quite accept Greenberg’s analysis in its entirety– at least in the case of Gore. It seems to me that age and the attitudes that go with it, rather than race and gender issues somehow separated out from age are the most important. One can concede that Gore will not be the best campaigner, without conceding the point that he would be the best president, at present, once he got into office. This is a guy who is more interested in governing than campaigning, not such a bad thing.

Further with Obama wooing the younger voters (many who do not vote), and Hillary the older voters (many who do, but limit the future building of the party), Gore as a transitional figure appealing to the Boomers when added to Obama’s appeal sets the Democrats up for 16 years of governance, rather than 8. Hillary may turn out better than I think, but she might also turn out to be a pyrrhic victory, becoming the new Jimmy Carter, while the Republicans get their act together and reinvent themselves.

I am more sanguine about an Obama presidency– given the thought that the perfect (in my mind a Gore-Obama ticket) shouldn’t be the enemy of the good– a ticket headed by Obama. If capacity accounts for something, and I think it does, Obama has the makings for a good president now or a great president later. I think it would be great for an African-American candidate to carry Deep South states and reconfigure the coalition of the parties in a fundamental mannter– making the Democrats a national presidential party again–but that takes time.If Gore doesn’t run, I definitely am an Obama supporter. Even if Gore does run, I believe that Obama should be on the ticket. He is the party’s future, IMO.

Maybe, Hillary will surprise me and jettison the elitist insider ballast that makes me think she is a reprise of the past rather than a harbinger of the future. Or maybe John Edwards, who is so admirable in many ways championing the cause of the less powerful, will get his act together and totally upset the conventional wisdom.

As for the Republicans, they seem to have a pretty weak field to revitalize their party unless by losing they win and come up with a winning strategy while they demonize an unpopular Democratic president. The Carter scenario, I alluded to earlier.

This piece is so interesting because it counters conventional wisdom in almost every statement. Gore has not changed? Romney’s not credible? Thompson’s not conservative or exciting people because of his acting background? Edwards is not worth mentioning?

Interesting, but bizarre. I can’t really get behind your prognostications if they’re built on such unlikely assertions.

Americans are looking for a “savior” because we are tired of feeling divided and largely lacking in inspiring leadership. It has been a long time since Americans have been able to feel inspired by a common cause. I think we find ourselves in a similar position as the previous generation did in the late 60’s. One of the reasons Bobby Kennedy was so popular was because he painted a picture of a united America, filled with Americans living according to higher standards.
During WWII Americans made all sorts of sacrifices because we had a common goal. I think the most successful candidates (for Congress as well as the White House) will be those who can get Americans excited about a common vision of America and hopefully this time that common purpose won’t have to be defeating some enemy beyond our borders.

The funny thing is, Gore and Clark are far and away the best guys for the job at this point in history, and they watch from the sidelines…to use another sports analogy, they ride the bench while Coach’s less talented sons are in the game. I’d love a Gore/Clark ticket, to be frank. That’s a winner. Bill Richardson is the only other guy in the field that could be taken as seriously for his qualifications. Obama next for the Kennedy factor. He seems poised for greatness, and seems in posession of a soul, which is is the rarest commodity in Washington.

You are dead wrong on Al Gore! He is the person we Democrats need to run in 2008. He has the experience, unlike the current president; the gravitas, unlike the current president; the intelligence, unlike the current president; the will to change, unlike the current president; the view of the US as a partner with the world community, unlike the current president; and the humility to come back from the theft of his election to the presidency to consider another run. Unlike the rest of the Democratic field currently leading in the race, he has the experience we will need in our next president. Clinton, Obama and Edwards are interesting candidates but we have seen the result of installing a trainee president in office for the past six years – we can’t afford that again.

It is still too early to tell how accurate the analysis and predictions will turn out to be. A few thoughts on the Tennesseeans…

Gore has not changed his spots. However, the country may have grown up a bit after 8 years of Bush. Substance may finally be able to prevail over style.

Thompson comes across as more of a died in the wool conservative than do any of the front runners, and consistently so. He also has gravitas which could help him (if he runs) fulfill the Clinton adage, Democrats want to fall in love, Republicans want to fall in line.